Support of peers and family members also vital

Jump to

The uptake of HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa is influenced by the quality
and manner in which health services are delivered,
according to a review of 42 qualitative studies, published this month in BMC Public Health. Perceived problems
with confidentiality, staff attitudes and long waiting times discouraged many
people from testing, whereas trusted and more convenient facilities – and local
availability of antiretroviral therapy – encouraged individuals to take an HIV
test.

Moreover, the “availability and convenience of
provider-initiated HIV testing provides that extra ‘push’ that enables
individuals to overcome barriers,” the authors write. They call for stepping up
provider-initiated HIV testing, especially when individuals are being screened
for other, less stigmatising, conditions.

Their review also sheds light on numerous individual and
relationship factors that encourage or discourage people from taking an HIV
test.

On average, only four-in-ten African people living with
HIV have been diagnosed. A number of quantitative and qualitative studies have
looked into the reasons why, but systematic reviews are lacking.

Maurice Musheke and colleagues used an approach known as
‘meta-ethnography’ to synthesise the results of 42 different qualitative
studies conducted in 13 African countries, published between 2001 and 2012. The
researchers were looking specifically for research on the factors influencing access
to and uptake of HIV testing.

They say that despite the diversity of settings in
sub-Saharan Africa, their findings suggest that many of the barriers and
facilitators of HIV testing are similar across the region.

Health services – quality, trust and access

Numerous studies reported that uptake of testing was
influenced by past experiences with health care and trust in providers.
Problems with confidentiality, staff competence and staff attitudes discouraged
people from testing.

“VCT counsellors there
know me and if that counsellor at the VCT [centre] finds me with the virus then
he can start spreading the messages to friends of mine.” (48-year old male,
Malawi).

When services had staff who were not known in the local community, this enhanced perceptions of confidentiality.

When testing was provided at an HIV-specific health
facility, this was often felt to be less confidential. Being seen at an HIV testing centre was often perceived to be synonymous with
sexual promiscuity and being HIV positive.

Moreover, when taking an HIV test had financial costs
associated with it (user fees, travel expenses, loss of income), investing in
health had to compete with other needs. Inconvenient testing hours and long
waiting times exacerbated such problems.

Some service innovations have addressed these problems and
were reported to have made testing easier.

Outreach mobile and home-based testing services reduced
travel and waiting times. When such services had staff who were not known in
the local community, this enhanced perceptions of confidentiality.

The abolition of user fees, or the provision of food and
other commodities to people who test, encouraged uptake.

Moreover, the implementation of ‘opt-out’ medical provider
initiated testing (especially in antenatal and TB clinics) had increased the
number of people testing. People were already seeking medical attention and this
normalised HIV testing for some. But others were not sure that they truly had
the option to refuse a ‘provider-initiated’ test.

“Although they say its
voluntary, but they put pressure on you to test for it.” (23-year old
female tester, South Africa).

And changes to models of service delivery may not be enough
to counteract deep mistrust of the health system and conspiratorial beliefs
about HIV being a neo-colonial plot.

“Look around you, who is making money off of
this disease? It is not Zambians. It is you [white Westerners]. This is why
people are suspicious of this disease. This is why they think it [AIDS] was
brought in from the outside.” (Elderly male respondent, Zambia).

In some settings, some respondents believed that HIV testing
technologies were unreliable.

Beliefs about risk of infection and health

Studies reported
that individuals were motivated to test or decided it was unnecessary, based on
their own assessment of their risk of infection.

Having poor
health oneself, or a sexual partner or child being in poor health, raised many people’s perception of risk. Sometimes having had multiple sexual
partners or believing a partner to have been unfaithful also created a sense of
vulnerability.

Such
experiences motivated many to test, but paradoxically, some who assumed that
they were infected did not feel the need to confirm this with a test.

A recurring
theme of studies was individuals not testing for HIV because they perceived themselves
to be at low risk of infection. This was sometimes motivated by low levels of
sexual activity or a perception that HIV was primarily an issue for sex workers.

Others did not feel the need to test because their partner was reported to be HIV-negative, because they trusted their partner, or because they did not have any symptoms of ill-health.

The researchers call for sensitisation campaigns to focus on the way individuals assess their own risk, especially when HIV is understood as a far-off threat.

The increasing availability of antiretroviral treatment encouraged many people to test.

People’s
beliefs and understandings of health – and what it means to live with diagnosed
HIV – influenced decisions about testing. Even when
antiretroviral treatment was available, having diagnosed HIV was still
associated with death and mental distress, with a diagnosis causing an individual
to ‘think too much’.

“Why look for troubles – I will never do a
test. I cannot look for my death.” (Male non-tester, Tanzania).

Nonetheless,
numerous studies found that the increasing availability of antiretroviral
treatment – with HIV no longer being seen as a death sentence – encouraged many people
to test. Specifically, pregnant women were aware of having a means to prevent
onward transmission should they be diagnosed with HIV.

Social relationships

Several
studies reported that fears of being stigmatised discouraged people from testing.

“Even if I am already
infected, nobody knows and it causes me no problems, at least for now. Imagine
I go and do the testing and I find out I am positive, for how long will I hide
it? Once people get to know I will be finished. My family will shun me. My
friends will desert me. I will not be able to get a decent job. That is dying
even before the infection kills me.” (25-year old female non-tester,
Nigeria).

Individuals feared losing sexual partners and social support
if they tested – divorce and domestic violence were seen as possible
consequences. Single people were concerned that they would not be able to marry
in the future.

Social expectations in relation to key life events, especially marriage and parenthood, could encourage HIV testing.

In particular, numerous studies found that married women
lacked autonomy in relation to HIV testing and their health more broadly. Women
needed permission from husbands to test, but requesting it could raise
suspicions of infidelity or accusations of having brought HIV into the couple. Frequently,
HIV testing was shunned to avoid straining the marriage.

The authors note that in societies which lack formal welfare systems, people rely on family and social connections for survival. The withdrawal of material and social support could have profound consequences.

Conversely, when people did choose to test, the support of peers and family
members was key in the decision-making process.

Moreover, social expectations in relation to key life events
could encourage HIV testing. Marriage and parenthood were, in many communities,
highly valued events that linked an individual to the wider community. Several studies reported HIV testing
being understood as a necessary step before marriage.

Similarly, HIV testing
was accepted during antenatal care as it helped achieve the social obligation
to give birth to a healthy child.

In the light of this, the researchers recommend the
expansion of home-based testing and other interventions that focus on couples and households, rather than individuals.

NAM’s information is intended to support, rather than replace, consultation with a healthcare professional. Talk to your doctor or another member of your healthcare team for advice tailored to your situation.

The Community Consensus Statement is a joint initiative of AVAC, EATG, MSMGF, GNP+, HIV i-Base, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, ITPC and NAM/aidsmap

close

This content was checked for accuracy at the time it was written. It may have been superseded by more recent developments. NAM recommends
checking whether this is the most current information when making decisions that may affect your health.

NAM’s information is intended to support, rather than replace, consultation with a healthcare professional. Talk to your doctor or another member
of your healthcare team for advice tailored to your situation.